who can give up essential
liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty
-- Benjamin Franklin
"All governments lie and nothing
say should be believed."
"Power tends to corrupt, and
absolute power corrupts
absolutely. Great men
almost always bad men."
Used Cheap, 'Web Crawler' Software to Collect
Down Economics Is Working! (If You're Doing The
3. 'A Pill for Every Ill'
This is the crisis issue of today's Nederlog, but there wasn't much:
two items on the crisis, and one on health. This is not my fault: I
check every day over 30 internet addresses, and I report what I find on
the crisis (if it seems to make sense, and also sometimes if not), but
this is what I found today. (And there also is a very brief personal
Used Cheap, 'Web Crawler' Software
to Collect NSA Files
First, an article by the Common Dreams staff on Common Dreams:
This starts as follows:
Yes, that seems at least
likely: the point, after all, is having the permission(s), and these
Snowden had. And downloading a reported 1.7 million files by hand is a
very long affair.
Snowden who alerted the world to America’s out of control National
Security Agency reportedly used cheap and widely available software to
scoop up thousands of files on the NSA’s online activities.
The New York Times Sunday quoted
a senior US intelligence officials as saying: “We do not believe this
was an individual sitting at a machine and downloading this much
material in sequence,”adding that the process was “quite automated.”
The spider can be programmed
to jump from website to website following embedded links and copying
everything in its way. Snowden reportedly set the right algorithm for
the software that indicated subjects and how far it was to follow the
links. The whistleblower was reportedly able to gain access to 1.7
million files, including NSA’s internal “wiki" materials that are used
to share data across the world.
There is also this from Snowden, that seems quite justified to me:
Through his lawyer
at the American Civil Liberties Union, Mr. Snowden did not specifically
address the government’s theory of how he obtained the files, saying in
a statement: “It’s ironic that officials are giving classified
information to journalists in an effort to discredit me for giving
classified information to journalists. The difference is that I did so
to inform the public about the government’s actions, and they’re doing
so to misinform the public about mine.”
The rest of the article
is about tomorrow, which is the day
websites will take a stand against government surveillance by
plastering protests across their home pages.
I hope it will succeed,
I am not confident.
2. Trickle Down Economics
Is Working! (If You're Doing The Trickling)
Next, a video by The Young Turks:
This takes 11 minutes
and is mainly about this graphic:
shows is the results of a study done at Stanford University on incomes
from 1967 till 2012, and specifically about the percent changes
for the five
groups of adjusted household incomes.
What you see is three things (mainly):
First, from 1968 to 1978 these changes were about the same.
Second, around 1978, because of two Supreme Court decisions, the changes
started to change.
Third, since 1978 the richest have become a lot richer; the richest
one have remained the same or become slightly less; while the remaining
have gotten a lot poorer.
Of course, you have to believe this is good research, but it seems fair
enough to me. There is also this in the video:
That is not a lot of money, for the majority of the US
Conclusion: The US economy is not trickling down, from the rich
to the poor; in fact, it is trickling up, from the poor to the rich. That is, the money the poorest 60%
have lost, through getting no increases in their salaries for nearly
forty years has nearly all gone to the richest, who also tend to
pay a lot less in taxes.
3. 'A Pill for Every Ill'
Next, an article by John
Ericson in Newsweek:
This starts as follows:
were fewer possible psychiatric diagnoses, would fewer people consider
themselves ill? A growing number of health experts suspect that
psychiatric care is drifting toward "diagnostic inflation," in which
the rate of mental disorders balloons as a result of new diagnoses -
and not due to an increasingly troubled population. What's worse is
that this process may be fueled by the very document that is supposed
to control it.
Well, having studied the
matter since 2010, and having written over
100 articles (Nederlogs) on
the topic, and being a psychologist and a philosopher, which means
among other things that I can judge the pretensions of
rationally, and also that I do not have a motive to shield them
or their incomes,
I'd say that the answer to the question in the first paragraph is quite
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM-5), a 1,000-page behemoth that is now in its
fifth edition, gives researchers and clinicians across the country a
common language for discussing the ins and outs of a mind that is not
well, ideally allowing everyone to agree on who is and isn't ill. The
manual is produced by the American Psychiatric Association
Also, for me the
psychiatric brotherhood is fraudulent, and always was fraudulent, because they pretended to have cures and
diagnoses that were not based on real science. They never were,
and they still aren't, for there simply is not sufficient
the brain to explain why and how people do get mad or neurotic. Period.
This was so from Freud onwards till Laing, through all of the many
varieties of psychiatry, and from then on it only got worse: psychiatry
did become very fraudulent from the DSM-III onwards, when they
discovered that a mere book of purported "diagnoses" of what
they call "disorders" (because there rarely is any recognized disease
for which they do not have any fact-based theory to support
them in nearly all cases, which makes it definitely and totally
non-scientific, also got accepted by the majority of the population,
indeed just as the majority accepts religion.
Also, there is dr. Alan Frances, who once again makes himself quite
ridiculous. What he wants you and me and the readers of Newsweek to
believe is this - and I have read this at least three times now:
"(..) I know
the people working on the DSM-5, and I think they've made simply
terrible decisions, but that they've done it with pure heart."
That is: the nearly
30.000 American psychiatrists and ca. 5 big American pharmaceutical corporations, who together make
literally billions of dollars in profit a year on a single
patented medicine, that in any case of psychiatric medicines is only patented
because it is a slightly altered form of some drug that already was
there 25 or more years ago (!), are so incredibly non-profit
oriented, and so totally blind to their own monetary advantages, that
all these billions they make through their diagnoses and their
prescriptions can be explained - if you believe dr. Alan Frances - as
being due to the extremely "pure hearts" of a couple of leading
who went into medicine anyway to make money, for that
is why people work , and who made these extra
diagnoses, all of
which come with very expensive patented pills simply because...
they have "pure hearts" and were not blinded by their desires
to make another billion or three, collectively, but - I quote - because
they "were blinded by their desires to help "the missed patient" - the individual in pain".
O Lord! Well, personally I - a livelong atheist - believe that I become
a Catholic who believes that 3=1 before I believe a completely
crapulous story like this.
Then again, you are completely free to believe your psychiatrists and
your priests, who all want you to believe that they - unlike everybody
else - work out of the pure goodness of their pure disinterested hearts
to help you , much rather than for the very great amounts of money
make with it.
I stick with H.L. Mencken:
It is hard to
believe that a man is
telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his
This is another file that is over 30 Kb, apart from the
illustrations, so I take it I have done my work again for this day. If
there is tomorrow as little, I will write about something else.
Here it is necessary to insist, with
Aristotle, thay the governors do not rule, or at least, should
not rule: The laws rule, and the government, if good, is part
of its executive power. Here I quote Aristotle from my More on stupidity, the rule of law, and
It is more proper
that law should govern than any of the citizens: upon the same
principle, if it is advantageous to place supreme power in some
particular persons, they should be appointed to be only guardians, and
the servant of laws.
note the whole file I
quote from is quite pertinent.)
 This simply is a fact. There is also nothing
blameworthy about it: We know very much less than we desire to know.
What is blameworthy, and very much so in my opinion, is
to pretend knowledge that you ought to know you do not have, merely to
be able to make money that way. That is the way of religion, and that
is the way of psychiatry, and I for my part believe that mankind would
be a lot better of without either.
I also believe that psychologists, although they know as little as
psychiatrists, are who you should turn to if you have psychological
problems, which I agree do occur, and occur rather often (though not as
detailed in any DSM, which is also what most psychologists do not
believe: the DSM is merely a bag of tricks to help psychiatrists sell
drugs, and has no real scientific validity of any kind, with its over
400 "disorders", nearly all imaginary, at least as defined, so far as I
And I do not say this because I am a psychologist (for I do not believe
psychology is a real science either, for the most part), but because I
know that psychologists listen better and have no power
to lock you up, nor are they in an evil but very profitable tie
pharmaceutical companies, simply because psychologists cannot prescribe
That they cannot lock you up and cannot prescribe medicines is very
much more as it should be, and these are my main reasons to recommend
psychologists very much more than psychiatrists - though I should add
that "the buyer ought to beware", and there so far really is very
little knowledge of how the brain produces its many miracles.
 There really is a lot to notion that psychiatrists
are much more like priests (who can
help to lock you up and force medicines into you, which priests aren't)
than like real scientists, and one of their many common points is that
both pretend to be better than ordinary men, either because
"they are analysed" or because they are "accepted as priests", and to
work out of the
goodness of their hearts rather than to make money. Well, I for my part
believe none of their theories, whether religious or psychiatric, and I
am certain that they "are only in it for the money" (Zappa),
indeed also with a
very few exceptions in both cases.
(that I prefer
to call M.E.: The "/CFS" is added to facilitate search machines) which
is a disease I have since 1.1.1979: